phantom tollbooths in Davis Sq. ...

[an-art-worker.livejournal.com]

apropos of nothing and not a serious proposal but I was thinking about sales taxes last night, the discussion of tolls on 93 south and something to do with all the border violence going on in the world these days. Suddenly I had this image of tollbooths/checkpoints on the roads entering Davis Sq. Weird but interesting to speculate on.

The growth in popularity of the sq. has brought higher rents and housing prices, higher prices in stores and bars and general gentrification. The city of Somerville and the property owners benefit but the residents don't. Would be interesting to have a toll that went to offset the costs of gentrification to people who actually live here.

Comments

[jadelennox]

would we be using them to rescue the princesses of Sweet Rhyme and Pure Reason from the terrifying tower of Middlesex Bank, wherein they are guarded by the Terrible Trivium?

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

It's the residents who are causing the gentrification. They are the ones who are constantly willing to pay more to live there and that's what's raising the prices in general.

Also: most property owners in Davis are also residents (ie, condo/house owners) and they benefit greatly from increased property values.

Finally, increased property values means increased tax revenues and that benefits everyone.

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Would be interesting to have a toll that went to offset the costs of gentrification to people who actually live here.

Only if we wanted traffic to be more messed up in the Square than it already is!

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

They are the ones who are constantly willing to pay more to live there and that's what's raising the prices in general.

That's sort of an over-simplification, especially for those ALREADY living there.

Once you have a place, and get it to how you like it, moving/not moving isn't simply a financially based decision. That's how come a lot of landlords figure they can get away with rent hikes that end up being a total monthly of $500 over 2-3 years.

should have read:

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

total monthly increase

[rollzroix.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of an old article (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31621) from The Onion.

[artic-monkeys.livejournal.com]

yes, local businesses are going work together to provide more parking and access to their businesses, this means more traffic and pollution for you. Resident communities need to stick together to ensure that you are not losing your parking spots, parks, or anything else that you consider to add the quality of living here. Most businesses are predatory and only care about making money. Business owners and commercial landlords are very aggressive and sharp. Especially if the rent is due and they owe back pay. The way I see it is ,that a local business should serve the community. Not the other way around. The local bakery should provide a service to the local community. Either bake a bunch a bread for everyone or pay a lot of taxes so that our home property taxes go down. check this out: These commercial developments may look like any other strip of chain stores, but not every town of 400 can lay claim to $3 million in annual sales-tax revenue -- $4 million in a good year. Sunset Valley passed the windfall directly on to its residents and business owners in 1995 by abolishing city property taxes. (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A181032)

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

I understand that, but I'm willing to bet the *vast* majority of renters in Davis have not been there more than 10 years, and 10 years ago the people moving to Davis were a big cause for the gentrifying.

The point of this post is to reward the residents with a "toll" (which is retarded to begin with since it would just mean no one would ever go to Davis again) - My point is most of the residents are at "fault" for the costs. (Though I personally don't think gentrification is such a bad thing)

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

*exactly*

What? It's modest...

[komos.livejournal.com]

I propose we close off the community from the outside world with barricades made of the furniture of overpriced bars and restaurants and then arm aging, latte-toting hipsters to keep the undesirables out altogether. Why stop at charging them entry when we could instead protect the Square's unique cultural heritage by systematically driving away the speculators, the revenooers, and the gainfully employed?

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

You know, i was recently reading a post about a 3br that was going for $3000 in the 90's now at $1800, not far from Davis . . .

Gentrification is a one word label that barely covers all of the bases of what happens. It's too simple, and leads to scape goating (on both sides).

[chenoameg.livejournal.com]

What sort of amelioration would make you happy? Is it just a matter of affordability, or are there other issues you think gentrification makes worse?

[an-art-worker.livejournal.com]

that's hilarious. I actually lived in Wicker Park when I was going to grad school at the Art Institute of Chicago. It was artists like me, traditional polish and mexican residents and gang members (*lots* of gang members). That was the onset of gentrification. A few hipster art bar dives opened and the gentirifcation clock started ticking.

That's what is funny/pathetic about stuff like the Union Sq. arts festival and the arts related stuff that is going on in Medford in the last year or two: the artists who participate in drawing attention to those areas will soon be displaced. At least Boston throws a bone to artists (BRA artist qualified subsidy housing).

[ron_newman]

What's happening in Medford, besides West Medford Open Studios?

[artic-monkeys.livejournal.com]

That is crazy and you know it. There were a lot of 3br apartments going for 3000 back then, and they all are still in the 2700 to 3300 range except for this 'example' that you are citing.

I know there are a lot of money hungry landlords out there, there are a lot of folks that just bought places with those adjustable rates too as well as the flippers and make money fast folks. But on the other hand, there are a lot of great ones that try to keep the rents stable and keep long term tennants. Most serious investors look at this kind of real estate as long term investments. The issue is that these apartments are not the ones turning over. People get find these places and stay in them forever, or sublet them.

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

Also: most property owners in Davis are also residents (ie, condo/house owners) and they benefit greatly from increased property values.

As a long time home-owner in Davis Sq (we bought about a decade ago), I'd like to dispute this. My property value keeps going up. yup. And so do my taxes. The only way I could benefit from my property value going up would be to either move out or take out increasingly high home-equity loans. The latter just increases my debt load and keeps me from ever owning my house out-right. We've done it a couple time when the repairs the house needed were expensive and time-critical (need a new roof NOW, can't wait until we can save the money for it, borrow off the value of the house to maintain the value of the house). Sure it's nice that we *can* do that, but it doesn't make us rich.

Or we could cash out. Our house has doubled in value since we bought it. Great. We sell it and go.... where? I have been slowly building a personal and professional network in this area. I have dozens of friends who all live within a mile of my home... most of us settled in this neighborhood because it was affordable and convenient. There's no where within an hour's travel we could move to off the equity from our home, and even if we did sell our house here and go buy in Dorchester, everyone I know would be on the other side of town. I could up and move to Iowa I guess, but I have no family there, no friends, no professional contacts, nothing. Homes are not purely financial transactions. You buy a house when you're ready to put down roots, and it's costly in many different definitions of the word, to pull them out.

Theoretically the increased tax-revenue does benefit me. Sure. I pay a little more in each year, and the services in the neighborhood theoretically get a little better. Maybe someday the city will even buy some snow-removal equipment for sidewalks... maybe by the time I'm walking with a walker, I'll be able to get to the market after a snowstorm without tottering in front of the green-line train that will have just been built up through Somerville. We chose to live in this neighborhood because we could afford it. If the benefits that would, indeed, be nice come along at the cost of it becoming a neighborhood I can't afford to live in any more, and I have to pull up roots, how exactly do I benefit?

My grandparents built the house they lived in on a large farm-plot on Martha's Vineyard out of the money they made cleaning houses, selling eggs from their chickens, and taking tourists out on their little boat. By the time that house landed in my father's hands the property value was so high (and thus the taxes) that the only way he could afford to hold onto and maintain it, has become to rent it out year round to people who would not give us the time of day on the street.

Sure. We own a house on the Vineyard, that makes us "rich." Great. The only way that could benefit us financially would be to sell the house my grandfather built with his two hands and that my uncles were born in. I haven't spent a night in it since I was 12 (and that was a *long* time ago).

This is not to say that improving neighborhood is "bad." Gentrification can be a wonderful thing, and often, long-term, benefits a community... it's just short-sighted and overly simplistic to assume that property owners *always* benefit from it within their life times, or even that of their grandchildren.

[an-art-worker.livejournal.com]

oops - I meant Malden. Sorry.

[philbot.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Go, property values, go! :)

[overstim.livejournal.com]

The rental market in a city like Boston does not follow the typical supply/demand dynamic, because there is GREATLY higher demand than supply- if some bohemian decides to take a stand and refuse to pay more, someone else will.

[overstim.livejournal.com]

hmm, limit traffic to davis square? Yeah, GREAT idea! thats what almost permanently KILLED Medford Square. Its still recovering 10 years after being re-opened.

Um, by the way- higher housing costs lead to lower crime, better roads and sidewalks, urban landscaping, police patrols, more health inspectors, and cleaner streets and air. So what were you saying about the city and residents not benefitting?

You want lower rent, move to Detroit and dont cry to me when you get shot.

[rollzroix.livejournal.com]

Not to dispute your larger point, but I always like to make a point about Somerville to people who may be renters or have never owned a home in another community. Residential property taxes in Somerville, if you are an owner-occupier, are actually exceptionally LOW. The city grants an exemption to owner-occupiers that basically amounts to the 1st $145,000 or so (I'm not sure exactly what it is this year) of your assessment being tax free. That means if your house is assessed at $345,000, you are only paying taxes on $200,000. The current annual tax for my home in Somerville is actually more than $1,000 LESS than I used to pay in Worcester for my considerably less valuable home there.

I don't know if this applies to condos as well but I assume it does.

[artic-monkeys.livejournal.com]

People can ride their bikes, Take the T, a bus, walk or call PlanetTran to take them to Davis. After that, what is wrong with limiting the commercial growth, and traffic of an area in order to preserve the quality of life that residents want? There are streets turned into one ways just for that reason. Keeping traffic out of neighborhoods.

Here is a good read too: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/showdoc.html?id=104830

[overstim.livejournal.com]

Youre talking about limiting the growth of an area to preserve the quality of life that a FEW residents want. Im sure that if you presented the possibilities AND CONSEQUENCES of such an idea to the whole area, youd be very disappointed in the resulting vote.

[artic-monkeys.livejournal.com]

I would be very interested to know what everyone thinks and see how they would vote on that. I would like to apply what you are saying to the cape wind project. Those folks in gated communities can do this but we can't. That sucks!

The folks that started Davis fought hard to stop 50 houses from being torn down and fought to stop park-ride communter parking lots. Now the biggest champions for change – the original residents – cannot afford to stay.

A healthy commercial district is a slow district

[turil.livejournal.com]

Studies have shown that businesses (and certainly residential areas as well) function best when traffic is going at about 3 miles per hour. A walking pace, essentially. In light of that, I have often wished (and said so in a city sponsored public forum) that Davis Square should be turned into a pedestrian area, where cars were the exception, not the rule, like has been successfully done in Downtown Crossing (where motor vehicles are discouraged, but allowed on an as needed basis, and motorists are expected to give priority to all non-motorized traffic). A "Pedestrianized Zone" if you will...

Imagine being able to get from the Somerville Theater to Brooks without spending ten minutes waiting for a walk signal or being honked at for having the audacity to cross the street in a crosswalk, or negotiating the obstacle course that is the many double parked cars and delivery vehicles and swerving buses driven by happried bus drivers. It's good for business, it's good for residents, it's good for visitors, and it's safer and healthier. Once suburbanized people get over the knee jerk reaction of the idea of not being able to take their cars wherever the hell they want, they will find that this is a far more wonderful way to live. And if they still find that they don't appreciate the human pace of a thriving urban area, then they can move back out into the sprawling suburbs and everyone will be happy!

I'm guessing that this is something for a fairly distant future, but it may happen sooner than many expect and may even happen quite naturally due to market forces and the necessary restructuring of the transportion systems that will have to come with a crash in the oil-based economy.